CFI’s Analysis of How Many Gave, and the Sources of Candidates’ Funds, in the State Elections of 2014

Large donors and non-party organizations dominate state elections Only 1% of adults contributed in the median state

Follow CFI on Twitter:

The Campaign Finance Institute today is releasing three new items related to its now-completed analysis of candidates’ funds in 2014 state elections.

An analysis of the sources of candidates’ funds in each of the states;

An analysis of the percentage of adults in each of the states who contributed any money to the candidates who ran for office in 2014; and

An unveiling of the post-2014 version of CFI's 50-state “Citizen Policy Analyst” tool that lets users begin from a chart showing the actual sources of campaign funds in a particular state, and then test the effects of a variety of policy options in that state.

As we have seen in the past, the number of people who contribute to state elections is strikingly small (see table 1). of the 47 states1 examined in 2014, Oregon (1.05%) was the median state in terms of percent of voting age population (VAP) who contributed to a state gubernatorial or legislative election. Rhode Island led all states with 4.63% of VAP giving, and North Dakota was at the bottom with 0.11% percent contributing. North Dakota allows unlimited contributions to candidates from individuals and PACs. It did not have a gubernatorial election in 2014. California was second from the bottom at 0.22% and it did have a gubernatorial election.

All of these percentages include generous estimates of the number who gave small amounts below each state’s minimum disclosure threshold. The median percentage was only slightly above 2012 (.88%), despite the fact that most states did not have gubernatorial elections in 2012, but 36 did in 2014. In 2010, Pennsylvania was also the median state, but at a slightly higher rate of 1.31% of VAP. To see CFI’s previous analysis of state elections, click here for (2012) and here for (2006 & 2010).

SOURCES OF FUNDS

MAJOR DONORS AND ORGANIZATIONS: Candidates make up for the small number of donors by relying on large contributions from individual donors and non-party organizations. These include PACs, businesses, labor unions, and associations. Candidates in the median states received 71% of their money from individuals who gave $1,000 or more, combined with money from non-party organizations. In 2012 there were five states in which large individual donors and non-party organizations accounted for more than 80% of candidates’ money. In 2014 the number of these states climbed to eleven. Three were above 90% (Nebraska, Nevada and Alabama).

SMALL DONORS: Small donors were on the other end of the scale. The median amount from donors who gave $250 or less was 12%. Kansas, Hawaii and Oklahoma each came in at this level (see Table 2). This was down from 2012, when the median was 16%, although if you compare the same 36 states that had legislative and gubernatorial elections in 2010 as well as 2014 the small donor median is nearly the same, 12% in 2014 and 11% in 2010.

Connecticut’s candidates received the highest percentage of their private funds from donors who gave $250 or less – 99% for candidates who participated in the state’s full public financing system and 90% for privately financed candidates. It is worth noting that both of Connecticut’s general election gubernatorial candidates in 2014 accepted public financing. The contribution limit for non-participating legislative candidates was $250 per election for House candidates and $1,000 for Senate candidates.

Montana had the highest small-donor percentage among states with only private funding, at 82%. Like Connecticut, it has a low contribution limit for state legislative candidates ($320 for the full election cycle in 2014). Montana did not hold a gubernatorial election in 2014.

There was a very large drop between the second and third place states. Candidates in Massachusetts (third place) received 34% of their money from small donors; ones in Rhode Island (4th place) received 31%.

Minnesota saw a significant drop in its candidates’ reliance on small donors. In 2012 66% of funds came from donors who gave $250 or less. In 2014 that percentage dropped to 24%. Minnesota doubled its contribution limits between the two elections, from $1,000 to $2,000 per election segment for House candidates and from $2,000 to $4,000 for gubernatorial candidates.

FEDERAL COMPARISONS: As a comparison, candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives received 7% of their contributions in 2014 from donors who gave $200 or less. They received 75% from those giving $1,000 or more and from PACs. (see detailed table)

President Obama’s campaign committee received 28% of its 2012 money from donors who gave $200 or less and 39% from those giving $1,000 or more. (see detailed table)

NOTE ON METHODOLOGY: To derive the percentage of a state’s voting age population (VAP) that gives to candidates, CFI began by counting the number of unique donors to candidates in each of the relevant elections. The records were obtained from the National Institute on Money in State Politics, which collects, standardizes and produces electronic files for each of the states. Itemized donors who gave to more than one candidate (or more than once to a single candidate) were counted only once. Unitemized donors had to be estimated. CFI assumed that each unitemized donor gave half of the state’s disclosure threshold. Thus in the median state, with a disclosure threshold of $50, CFI assumed an average of $25. CFI then divided the number of unique donors in each state by the state’s VAP in the election year as reported by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, including non-citizens. The results are reported as the percentage of VAP who were unique donors in each state.

1New Jersey, Mississippi and Louisiana did not hold elections in 2014. Wisconsin’s calculations were based on in-state contributions only. Since the recall elections in 2012, Wisconsin’s elections have seen an influx of out of state contributions that vastly exceeds what is seen in any other state. Only counting in-state contributions provides a more reasonable comparison with other states.

The Campaign Finance Institute is the nation's pre-eminent think tank for objective, non-partisan research on money in politics in U.S. federal and state elections. CFI's original work is published in scholarly journals as well as in forms regularly used by the media and policy making community. Statements made in its reports do not necessarily reflect the views of CFI's Trustees or financial supporters.